五代前期的後梁和後唐淵源於朱溫與李克用在唐末所建立的藩鎮政權，他們利用唐室衰微的時機，憑藉強大軍力不斷擴張，進而建立新的中央政府。依靠武力崛起的地方勢力在試圖轉變為中央政權時，其領導人勢必面臨合理化的問題，須解釋自己為何擁有「天命」而登基。後梁的朱溫希望透過禪讓與郊天儀式，證明自己是天命所歸；後唐的李存勗則以李唐王室的繼承人自居，宣稱唐室中興。不論採取何種方式，這些戎馬出身的領導人都必須要與文士合作，重視禮樂儀式，重建官僚體系。於是，他們原本全以軍事為中心的政權發生改變，也間接造成這些武人統治者的文儒化。由於這些戎馬出身的統治者接觸文藝知識的時間甚短，對於儒學的理解有限，導致他們過度期待「正統」所能帶來的政治利益。從現實層面而言，儀式的進行須耗費大量金錢與人力，卻無助於政治和軍事問題的根本解決。當朱溫專注於禪讓儀式時，李克用父子得到重整旗鼓的機會；後梁末帝重視文治，卻缺乏統兵的能力，終為李存勗所滅。李存勗在滅梁後暫停軍事擴張，致力模仿唐代皇帝的形象，希望以唐室重建為宣傳，威服南方的獨立王國；執掌大權的郭崇韜則努力重建由世族領導的文人政府，而這兩點都成為其政權快速衰亡的原因。李嗣源取代李存勗的王位，不再追求建立王朝的正統性，而致力於保境安民，這種重視現實的政策反而能達成較長的穩定與和平。這個轉變也成為五代歷史上的一個分水嶺。

After the decline of the Tang imperial authority in the late ninth century, a number of local warlords competed to erect autonomous regimes by force, gradually establishing their own dynasties. The first two dynasties after the end of the Tang, the Later Liang and the Later Tang, grew out of the rival regimes established by Zhu Wen and Li Keyong. Both Zhu and Li were bellicose generals, but who increasingly came to realize the importance of legitimacy in the process of building their national regimes.To legitimize his power, Zhu Wen claimed that the Tang orthodox authority had been transmitted to him. In contrast, Li Keyong and his son legitimized their fight against Zhu by claiming that they carried the standard of Tang restoration. Although adopting different approaches, both two military-oriented regimes turned to civil issues, such as organizing the bureaucracy and performing rituals. From a cultural perspective, the political leaders’ interest in civil affairs preserved and promoted Confucian tradition under violent conditions. Their claims to orthodoxy before they effectively controlled all of China, however, retarded the military actions of these two regimes, because the attention of their rulers was diverted from the battlefield to civil affairs. This article will analyze the relationship between military expansion and the management of legitimation in both the Later Liang and the Later Tang. The short lives of the Later Liang and the Later Tang, I argue, are partly attributable to their emperors’ efforts at legitimation. Military might rather than the appearance of orthodox dynastic practice was crucial to the fortunes of these two dynasties, but the emperors seemed to overemphasize the latter over the former.